I want a data from a real world pictures taken by both lenses. Side by side comparison, not cropped, not post processed. That's what i want. i don't want numbers!

You reminded me my 4yrs kid. This discussion is closed

Calm down calm down daddy...you have post too much in this forum already. Why won't you go out in the real world and take some real photos instead of reading and writing some comments. Practice make perfect!!

I had 5 copies of the original 24-70. None matched my 24-105mmL and all were returned or sold. I now have the MK II, it is finally a keeper.

Hah! My story is 100% identical in every single detail. I'll add that the new 24-70 f/2.8II is so good it rendered my primes in the 24-70 range redundant. The Sigma 50 f/1.4 has gone, as has the 24 f/1.4II. The new lens is quite simply...stellar.

A lot of people who bought the 24-70 mark ii are trying to convince themselves as well as others that they made a good(perhaps "worth it") purchase. Wake up people don't lie. The fact is, this argument whether the mark ii is worth the upgrade from mark 1 is the same thing as the argument of having more pixels. When you only view the image 100% crop then you will notice those things. Other than that, you will barely notice(if you will notice) the better sharpness. For the record, i owned both but end up selling the mark ii after 2 months of extensive use.

That's too bad you had this experience with the new lens. I think that's the first negative comment I've read. Maybe you had one of the somewhat rare good copies of the MkI, and then one of the almost unheard of bad copies of the MkII.

Well damn! You can't help bad luck! Or maybe it was a case of having out-of-reality expectations. It's happened to plenty of us at some stage with a significant purchase or life decision.

I currently have a stellar copy of the mkI 24-70L and I'm very happy with it. But the mkII sure does look tempting...but it's not on my priority list at the moment. It's a big cost for a little improvement.

Logged

Zlatko

A lot of people who bought the 24-70 mark ii are trying to convince themselves as well as others that they made a good(perhaps "worth it") purchase. Wake up people don't lie. The fact is, this argument whether the mark ii is worth the upgrade from mark 1 is the same thing as the argument of having more pixels. When you only view the image 100% crop then you will notice those things. Other than that, you will barely notice(if you will notice) the better sharpness. For the record, i owned both but end up selling the mark ii after 2 months of extensive use.

Version I was good when properly adjusted. But when put to heavy use, version I had a tendency to go out of whack and need service. When it went out of whack, you did not need to view the image at 100% to see the problem. You could see the problem very easily. Version II seems to be more durable. It is more reliable and also handles better.

I currently have a stellar copy of the mkI 24-70L and I'm very happy with it. But the mkII sure does look tempting...but it's not on my priority list at the moment. It's a big cost for a little improvement.

So was I. I had both copies of the 24-70L. I had a stellar copy of the Mk. I but decided to let go of it as the Mk II is lighter & the lens hood is more discreet compared to Mark I. Most of all, I am impressed with the sharpness and contrast of the Mark II and it is indeed worth the investment.

I currently have a stellar copy of the mkI 24-70L and I'm very happy with it. But the mkII sure does look tempting...but it's not on my priority list at the moment. It's a big cost for a little improvement.

So was I. I had both copies of the 24-70L. I had a stellar copy of the Mk. I but decided to let go of it as the Mk II is lighter & the lens hood is more discreet compared to Mark I. Most of all, I am impressed with the sharpness and contrast of the Mark II and it is indeed worth the investment.

Ah cool, good for you bud! It sure looks like a nice lens. I'm more of a prime lens user, so my 24-70L isn't as heavily used as some. So I'm not too fussed about changing it up. But if a new ef 35mm f1.4 II L comes out....I'll be all over one of those!

I currently have a stellar copy of the mkI 24-70L and I'm very happy with it. But the mkII sure does look tempting...but it's not on my priority list at the moment. It's a big cost for a little improvement.

So was I. I had both copies of the 24-70L. I had a stellar copy of the Mk. I but decided to let go of it as the Mk II is lighter & the lens hood is more discreet compared to Mark I. Most of all, I am impressed with the sharpness and contrast of the Mark II and it is indeed worth the investment.

Ah cool, good for you bud! It sure looks like a nice lens. I'm more of a prime lens user, so my 24-70L isn't as heavily used as some. So I'm not too fussed about changing it up. But if a new ef 35mm f1.4 II L comes out....I'll be all over one of those!

One thing for sure that 24-70 II can't beat prime is shallow DOF. 50L is the only L prime I use. I love the bokeh of this lens.

Switched to the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. Cheaper than the 240-70L V1 and I really wanted IS for the video. I was looking at the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS to get stabilization but I did not want to give up f/2.8 and the Tamron still looks better: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS vs Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - FIGHT!